From solr-dev-return-24950-apmail-lucene-solr-dev-archive=lucene.apache.org@lucene.apache.org Thu Mar 18 18:16:40 2010
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Received: (qmail 40424 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2010 18:16:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3)
by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 18 Mar 2010 18:16:40 -0000
Received: (qmail 37498 invoked by uid 500); 18 Mar 2010 18:16:40 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org
Received: (qmail 37461 invoked by uid 500); 18 Mar 2010 18:16:40 -0000
Mailing-List: contact solr-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Post:
List-Id:
Reply-To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list solr-dev@lucene.apache.org
Received: (qmail 37451 invoked by uid 99); 18 Mar 2010 18:16:40 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:16:40 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=10.0
tests=AWL,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from [208.69.42.181] (HELO radix.cryptio.net) (208.69.42.181)
by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:16:32 +0000
Received: by radix.cryptio.net (Postfix, from userid 1007)
id 2A66971C12A; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by radix.cryptio.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2854271C0F2
for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Hostetter
To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: rough outline of where Solr's going
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
References:
<8f0ad1f31003172123g29af4890l4491afa5e154e780@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
: > I thinks solr-3.1 only makes sense if Solr is include in one big
: > giant apache-lucene-3.1.tgz release
:
: Projects have multiple artifacts all the time for user convenience.
Ugh ... sorry, poor phrasing on my part ... i was not suggesting that we
*should* have a single monolithic release artifcat, i'm saying that since
we are not planning on having a monolithic release artifact, we don't
really have a need for unified version numbers -- we should try to stick
with teh current version number sequencing for consistency to our users.
The typical solr user shouldn't have to know/care that develpment is now
uified beween solr and the core of lucene -- the version numbers should
"bump" only as appropriate to signify thelevel of change from the *users*
perspective ... with 1.4 as the last release, it seems like the next
logical next "bumps" would be "1.4.1","1.5", or "2.0"
1.4.1 would imply really small amounts of changes, so that doesnt' really
apply; 1.5 would imply similar impacts on the user as between 1.3 and 1.4,
which also doesn't apply since we're removing deprecations and a lot of
users will *have* to change their configs; that leaves 2.0 which is a big
enough bump to properly convey "lots of stuff has changed, pay attention"
3.1 may make life easy for us as developers, but is likely to be just as
cofusing to users as if we called the next version "Q"
-Hoss